DISPARITY
38
DISPARITY
or simply disparity of worship, and implies a different
relation on the part of the contracting parties in the
matter of an essential religious rite, to wit, the Sacra-
ment of Baptism. Viewed in a less strict, but still a
proper, sense, it is named imperfect disparity of wor-
ship or, more commonly, mixed religion (mixta re-
ligio), which presupposes an equality as to the recep-
tion of baptism, but denotes a divergency as to form
of belief and religious observance. Imperfect dis-
parity, or mi.xed religion, does not render void the
marriage of a Catholic with a baptized non-Catholic;
but it does make it (vmless dispensation intervenes)
illicit and sinful. However, such a marriage may be
null and void on account of another diriment impedi-
ment, e. g. clandestinity.
Disparity of w-orship, in its strict sense, and as the subject of this article, is that diversity which exists between two persons, one of whom has, and the other has certainly not, received Christian baptism. This disparity exists between a baptized Christian, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, and a pagan, Moham- medan, Jew, or even a catechumen (believer in the Catholic Faith yet not baptized). Imperfect dispar- ity of worship, or mixed religion, might more strictly and aptly be named disparity of faith, since faith (an internal act), and not baptism, is the point of differ- ence; perfect disparity of worship, on the contrary, might more aptly and properly be called disparity of baptism, for the reason that the external act (bap- tism), and not the internal assent of the mind (faith), is the fixed point of dissimilarity. Baptism has been chosen as the basis of this diriment impediment for a twofold reason : ( 1 ) it is an external ceremony, easy of recognition and proof, and (2) it is a sacrament which imprints an indelible character upon the soul of the receiver and so presents a personal religious condition which is fixed and unchangeable. Personal faith, on the contrary, viewed either as the internal assent of the mind or as the outward profession of the internal act, is subject to change and not always easy of de- monstration, and hence could not afford a certain and immovable foundation. The primary reason why Catholics are debarred from intermarriage with un- baptized persons is because the latter are not capable of receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony, as baptism is the door to all the other sacraments. Further- more, according to the more probable opinion, the Catholic party who, with a dispensation, marries an unbaptized person, does not receive the sacrament or the concomitant graces (cf. Sanchez, Bk. II, disp. viii, n. 2; Pirhing, Bk. IV, tit. i, n. 71; Schmalzgru- ber, Bk. IV, tit. i, n. 307; Billot, "De Ecclesiae Sacra- mentis", pars posterior, 359 sqq.; Hurter, III, 538, n. 598; and Wernz, who examines the reasons for the opposite opinion and answers them, "Jus Decret.", IV, 63 sqq.). The Church has not decided this ques- tion; hence the opinion of Dominicus de Soto (In IV Sent., art. iii, ad finem), Perrone (II, 306), Rosset, who holds that it is the more probable (De Saer. Matri- monii, I, 284 sqq.), and Tanquerey (Svnopsis Theol. Dogmat., II, 648, n. 31), to wit, tha't the Catholic does receive the sacrament, is tenable. The marriage, ac- cording to both opinions, is certainlv sacred (Leo XIII, "Arcanum", 10 Feb., 18S0) and "indissoluble.
Extent of the Impkdiment. — This impediment exists only in instances where the disparity is of such nature that one of the contracting parties is, and the other party is certainly not, baptized. Every bap- tized person, Protestant as well as Catholic, is subject to this ilisqualifying and annulling impediment, be- cause Christ gave the Church jurisdiction over all who belong to it by baptism. lender the name "Catho- lic" are here included, besides practical Catholics, children baptizcii as infants in the Catholic Church but never reared or instructed in her teachings. Catho- lics who have fallen away or apostatized from the {."atholic Faith and have joined other denomina-
tions or turned infidel. Once baptized always bap-
tized, and always subject to the laws of Christ and His
infallible Church, is axiomatic. Disparity of worship
embraces and renders null and void (no dispensation
having been granted) the marriage (a) of a Catholic
with pagan, Mohammedan, Jew, or catechumen,
and (b) of baptized non-Catholics, e. g. heretics
and schismatics, with unbaptized persons. It does
not extend to, or make void, the marriage (1) of two
certainly imbaptized persons, for. since they do not
belong to Christ by baptism, the Church has no juris-
diction over them; (2) of a Catholic with a baptized
Protestant, or schismatic, or apostate Catholic, or
Catholic turned infidel; (3) of baptized non-Catho-
lics with one another. Seeing that the parties in the
second and third classes have been baptized, it is evi-
dent that their marriages are outside the domain of
the diriment impediment, whose aim is to protect the
sacrament.
Difficulties as to the marriages of Catholics with non-Catholics, and of non-Catholics with one another, or with pagans or other unbaptized persons have in these days multiplied, due either to absolute omission of baptism, or its careless and often invalid adminis- tration even among the so-called Christian denomina- tions. Doubts about the administration (duhium facti) or valid administration (dubitan juris) of bap- tism in these sects are as a consequence frequent, and render complex the question whether or not disparity of worship covers the marriages in these instances. The safe guide in this confusion is the axiom: a doubt- ful baptism, as regards a marriage already, or about to be, celebrated, is presumed to be valid if, after due in- vestigation, the doubt is still insoluble or it is not prudent (on account of delay, etc.) to remove it. This rule, so different from that governing baptism as a necessary means for salvation, is based upon the principle that the right to marry yields but to the evi- dence (not doubt) of the non-baptism. Accordingly, disparity of worship invalidates the matrimonial union of one doubtfully baptized with another cer- tainly not baptized. The doubt may concern the act of baptizing or the validity of the ceremony. Inves- tigation on these points must proceed in this manner: search must be made of the ritual belonging to the denomination of the party concerning whose baptism there is doubt, and if the ritual teaches the necessity of baptism, and prescribes the use of the valid matter and form in its administration, and, further, if the parents are strict adherents and observers of their religion, there is a certainty (sufficient for marriage) that the baptism was valid. If the ritual prescribes baptism with the necessary matter and form, but, upon investigation, a serious doubt remains, the bap- tism is still considered valid. If, on the contrary, the sect repudiates baptism, forbids infant-baptism, or admits to baptism only adults of thirty years, or the parents assert that they do not belong or wish to be- long to any sect or denomination, but are satisfied with pleasing the Supreme Being by a good, moral life rather than by any fi.xed form of worship, then there is no certainty, not even a presumption, in favour of the baptism in chiklhood. Should the parents be careless and negligent in the observances of the sect of which they are members, or Ijelong to a denomination which, whilst not rejecting baptism, yet does not ad- mit its necessity, and in which, ordinarily, baptism is not administered, then there is no presumption for or against the baptism of their offspring, and each indi- vidual case must be referred to Rome (Congreg. of the Inquisition, 1 Aug., 1883).
Disparity of worship does not affect the marriage of a Catholic or baptizetl non-Catholic with one whose baptism, even after careful investigation concerning the baptismal ceremony or its \'alidity, remains doubt- ful. Neither does it iu any way influence the mar- riage of two who, after diligent examination, are still
